Can we assume that the ever-vigilant, ever-honorable Democrats in Congress will discuss whether this incompetence rises to the level of criminality? Or will they just try to use it for electoral advantage?
During his 2003 investigations it was startling to Mike Hurley, the commission member in charge of investigating intelligence, and the other investigators on his team, just what had gone on in the spring and summer of 2001 - just how often and how aggressively the White House had been warned that something terrible was about to happen. Since nobody outside the Oval Office could know exactly what Tenet had told Bush during his morning intelligence briefings, the presidential and senior briefings were Tenet’s best defence to any claim that the CIA had not kept Bush and the rest of the Government well-informed about the threats. They offered a strong defence.The team’s investigators began to match up the information in the senior briefings and they pulled together a timeline of the headlines just from the senior briefings in the northern spring and summer:
“Bin Ladin Planning Multiple Operations” (April 20) and “Bin Ladin Threats Are Real” (June 30) It was especially troubling for Hurley’s team to realise how many of the warnings were directed to the desk of one person: Condoleezza Rice, the National Security Adviser. Emails from the National Security Council’s counter-terrorism director, Richard Clarke, showed that he had bombarded Rice with messages about terrorist threats. He was trying to get her to focus on the intelligence she should have been reading each morning in the presidential and senior briefings
“Bin Ladin Public Profile May Presage Attack” (May 3)
“Terrorist Groups Said Co-operating on US Hostage Plot” (May 23)
“Bin Ladin’s Networks’ Plans Advancing” (May 26)
“Bin Ladin Attacks May Be Imminent” (June 23)
“Bin Ladin and Associates Making Near-Term Threats” (June 25)
“Bin Ladin Planning High-Profile Attacks” (June 30),
“Planning for Bin Ladin Attacks Continues, Despite Delays” (July 2)
I think it is patently obvious that Rice knew, Tenet knew, and Cheney knew. It is always a matter of conjecture whether Bush is capable of knowing anything. With all the recent revelations about the way the administration hid evidence of Saudi involvement from the 9/11 commission, and stonewalled every attempt to find out what top officials knew, we know they were covering their tracks, the only question is what tracks?
As much as we all might like to believe otherwise, there are only 3 possible conclusions: they knew and did nothing, they were actively involved in the act, or their incompetence is beyond belief. We can choose among those 3, but there are no other rational options.
Posted by: Charles on March 8, 2008 8:40 AMWhile I am not "shocked", I am "appalled" by this excellent piece. It reminds me of and reinforces my astonishment on that morning in 2001 at how bumbling and inadequate and idiotic the first broadcast words of our "leader" were to his nation on that day.
I was tuned into the BBC radio news when they suddenly interrupted the broadcast with an announcement about the toppling by an airplane of a building in NYC. My first impulse was to smile and say to myself, "Oh boy, this is going to be another one of those END OF THE WORLD type broadcasts. What fun to get to hear this one live!"
But just to be sure, I flipped on my TV and saw immediately the smoke rising from the first building, followed by the second airplane crashing into the other building. My next thought was, "Oh, my god, the aircontrollers must have gone on strike again!"
When Bush came on air, I really did freak out then. My horrified thoughts were either that he was too stupid and disoriented to remember what his advisors should have already planted in his mind as the appropriate way to address the people during any sort of national tragedy, OR, that he must be surrounded with morons who hadn't even bothered to address such a possibility with him.
I guess I can be sure now that both of my thoughts and fears were absolutely on target.
Posted by: mfd on March 8, 2008 10:56 AMI agree with Charles and take the position they knew. In respect to the question posed the Dems have not done squat except to squawk a bit over the years and that's about it. Not going to change and to for people to think even if a Dem gets elected it will be different in any meaningful way is in for a disappointment.
Posted by: One Fly on March 8, 2008 5:20 PMThanks for spotting this. The book is coming out on Monday. There's a review in the NYT which has some juicy stuff. It could have been worse -- Kissinger was supposed to be the head honcho, but:
"In a memorable scene Mr. Shenon depicts the widows of 9/11 victims, a group that called itself the Jersey Girls, meeting Henry A. Kissinger, President Bush’s choice to be chairman of the 9/11 Commission, in the posh offices of Mr. Kissinger’s international consulting firm in New York. When one of the Jersey Girls asks Mr. Kissinger if he has any clients named bin Laden, Mr. Kissinger spills his coffee and nearly falls off his sofa. “It’s my bad eye,” Mr. Kissinger explains, as the women rush to clean up the mess — “like good suburban moms,” Mr. Shenon says one widow recalls. The next morning Mr. Kissinger telephoned the White House to resign from the commission."
Posted by: on March 9, 2008 1:47 AMDamning. Suggests LIHOP at least.
Posted by: Michael on March 10, 2008 4:36 AM